hvusslax

The Hungarian system is basically two separate elections at once where the results are just added together. There are single-member districts where the candidate that wins the plurality of votes in the district is elected (almost always a Fidesz candidate). Then there are party list elections in larger multi-member districts where the party affiliation of the MPs elected is roughly proportional to the votes to each party in the district. There is no effort in this system to make the final results proportional.

Germany, New Zealand and devolved legislatures of Scotland and Wales use a different sort of system where the party lists are used to achieve proportionality. In a system like that, Fidesz wouldn't get a lot of seats from the party listes because they are way overrepresented already in the single-member districts.

The Netherland has pretty much the same system as Israel, there is slight geographic representation but nationwide party votes do dictate the composition of parliament.

All the Nordic countries also use a proportional system with multi-member districts and measures to make the overall party representation in parliament align with their national share of the votes.

Maybe the problems with Israel are just problems with Israel rather than their particular system of voting.

Coming from a non-Anglosphere country with a long tradition of proportional voting, this idea of "my" representative has simply never made any sense to me. How can a member of a legislative body represent voters that didn't actually vote for him? What does it effectively mean to have "your" representative that you share with half a million other people and who doesn't share your values?

I can understand fixed sites for natural resources. The coal mine is where the coal is. But historically, the sites chosen for manufacturing industry are determined by what is logistically feasible. The factory goes where the railroad is, not the other way around (most of the time).

I don't know if OpenTTD allows it but in the original TTD it was possible to plop down factories at will (but not mines, farms or oil wells).

This is the norm in many places in Europe and elsewhere. 6 year olds walking to school by themselves and crossing multiple roads on the way.

America is a bit different. It is also built completely differently when it comes to car-oriented infrastructure.

Domesticated farm animals are far enough removed from their wild cousins to be their own species. They have been selectively bred over millenia for traits that make them easy to exploit for humans. Most of those traits work against them in the wild.

Is the BTicino plug (https://www.plugsocketmuseum.nl/Italian2.html) used at all in Italy now? There was a serious attempt at adopting it in Iceland in the late 1970s to early 1980s. These sockets can still be found in homes that were built in that period and they are just called "Italian sockets".

I often wonder how large a portion of all crypto holders are just FOMO-ing into a speculative asset because the number keeps going up, with no loyalty to the concept of cryptocurrency or its use cases.

You did not need to break your contemplative silence to write this empty pretentious drivel.

OP asked a question. I gave what seems to me to be the obvious answer.

"What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes..."

Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes. Every state has both rural and urban segments. Is the "rural proletariat" of California better represented than the "urban bourgeoise" of Rhode Island in this system? It's an 18th century compromise where the justifications where invented after the fact. This seems to be true for a lot of things about the founding of the United States. Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.

Inheriting constitutionally priveliged positions seems a bit hard to square with everyone being equal before the law.

It is simply an historical artifact and by no means a constitutional necessity.

Sweden is an interesting case, a constitutional monarchy in theory but where the monarch has been explicitly stripped of all powers, whereas many other European monarchies maintain a legal fiction of constitutional relevance for their royal families. Sweden could abolish the monarchy completely today and it would not affect anything about how the country runs. They also have a unicameral parliament.

Switzerland also doesn't have a traditional head of state, that role is held collectively by a seven-member council.

Even just 24 hours would do a lot to disrupt the echo chamber.